Can they take his mailing rights away? I'm curious about that.. I've never known anyone that was in jail so I don't know how the whole process goes. He has no right in my opinion to be able to stalk and send those types of letters out. Don't they read out going and incoming mail? I just don't get why the letter was able to pass through if they do read it and will be interested too in why it was... I feel bad for the young girl who got the mail.

And, as the law stands right now, sending letters is not stalking, UNLESS a threat is made. That is the whole reason for trying to get the stalking laws changed.

MB wrote:

---

Can they take his mailing rights away? I'm curious about that.. I've never known anyone that was in jail so I don't know how the whole process goes. He has no right in my opinion to be able to stalk and send those types of letters out. Don't they read out going and incoming mail? I just don't get why the letter was able to pass through if they do read it and will be interested too in why it was... I feel bad for the young girl who got the mail.

---

You might check the Wichita paper for what they determined to be the rights for the BTK killer. I know they wjere tring to take away some of his rights to mail and reading material for the almost the same reasons. It was not clear how those things were allowed or denied. 

You do hit on some very true facts here, good post

First- I will say that yes, You make a good point that he is still innocent so he would still have that right to mail out letters, But he hasn't bonded out and his home is still the jail, So I assume that they have rules there even for those awaiting trial.. I doubt that rules go out the window just because you haven't been founded guilty of your crimes yet.

Second- This guy is dumb as a rock. Go ahead Thurber keep digging your hole. You'd think his attorneys would tell him to stop.. But then again it's his behavior- It's what he does, He doesn't know how or when to stop. It was eerie that the girl he sent the letter to looked like Jodi.

And yes, Your right we don't know what the whole letter says because it's been sealed by the courts... But bits of the letter have been made public and he proceeded to tell her in the letter-

" told Bevilacqua she was the most beautiful contestant, that he wanted to be friends with her, and doing so could be the greatest friendship in her life."

 That is enough info to creep me out. Oh yes Justin I'm so sure this girl wants to friends with the likes of you- You KILLED her friend. yes, his words are non threatening... But we don't know what the rest of the note says, But I think your missing the point. If this girl didn't want mail from him, Then he shouldn't send mail to her. We never claimed he sent " a multitude of letters to her"- I think one was enough. Her first thought when she opened the letter was " THESE ARE THE HANDS THAT KILLED MY FRIEND" Says it all- She obviously DIDN'T want mail from him. That's HER right! And right there is why they are changing the stalking laws- The letter my not of threatened her, But she didn't want them and she shouldn't have to put up with them.

Arkcity Traveler-

Bevilacqua said she started crying when she saw that Thurber's name and return address was on the envelope of the letter.

"Why?" asked lead prosecutor and Assistant Attorney General Vic Braden.

"Because it was from Justin Thurber; these are the same hands that killed my friend," she responded.

You may think that sending a letter isn't a crime, But until you step into HER shoes then you can't make that call. He had no right to do that to her, He had no right to put her through those emotions- Would YOU want letters from an accused killer? One that might of killed your friend.... And yes I said " accused" you DIDN'T have to remind me that he is innocent until proven guilty, I already know that.

Elee-
Sure I understand the feelings that would be involved with the recieving of a letter, but at the same time if my sister had got an apology letter from him I wouldn't find a problem with it, and at the time none of you people here had any right to assume otherwise. Now after the fact it may seem like there should be some selective screening of his mail to Ms. Bevilacqua, but seeing how at the time of the initial letter they had no clue of what was going on I do not believe that the prison system should have the ability to screen that first letter. Only after the complaint should they be able to take action.

MB-

1) As I said earlier, it's hard to make a judgement on that kind of situation because nobody knew the situation except for a select few who had the information which you've provided. Cross-apply most of my response to Elee as being responsive to 3/4ths of your post.

2) I don't want 3000 credit card applications in the mail, but I still get the first one until I complain.

3) Nobody knows the mental state of Mr. Thurber at this time, the letter could have been intent to hurt or he might have thought it wasn't a bad thing. At any rate after this incident I believe they should be able to screen any outgoing mail to her or any other person who may have recieved mail from him and complained about the content.

4) I was not trying to push anything about him being innocent until proven guilty. From all the info I have found about prison rules, there is a distinct difference between those guilty and those accused, which was the point I was trying to make. From the info I collected it seems that their legal status and the rules of their particular facility determine the privileges a detained person has.

5) Some of your remarks seem unnecessarily hostile, but I guess it is a touchy subject and I seem to be on the dissenting side.

Until I read this thread again, my friends.